I don't use the GIMP. Maybe I have been too frustrated by the bug in Version 1.0 of the Windows version. It crashed every five minutes. I also don't like the many windows that fly around in GIMP. I prefer the Windows applications with one main window and child windows that are framed by the main window. Another big problem for me is that a lot of Photoshop plugins (including my own) don't work in GIMP. There are probably a lot of other things that I could say if I had a closer look at GIMP 2.

GIMP 2 may be able to compete with some low-cost graphics applications, but it still doesn't come close to Photoshop.

The Gimp is great!!!!!!!!! I use it. It is ture there are a few bugs but it is FREE!!!! It can also use Photoshop 8bf filters. It is NOT ram hungry like Photoshop, i only have 256 mb of ram and have never run out, but photoshop is sooooooooooooooo dam slow.

When gimp makes it to version 3 it is going to be BETTER than photoshop because it will have and brand new image library thing ( i am not a graphics person so forgive me).

The Gimp is my pefered choice, i have both Photoshop CS(pirated) and the latest version of GIMP. I uninstalled photoshop Yesterday and well i cant say i have missed it much, but the is a small problem Gimp cant open CS psd images because Adobe is holding the spec very tight to there chest, bu ti can open 7 and below. The Gimp also has the best PNG support of all apps.

Also Gimp cant use Jpeg2000 because there are no free librarys with the stuff it needs, but that will soon change.

Also gimp can work on ANY machine not just Macs and PCs like Photoshop.

I don't know what processor you use, but Photoshop is the fastest graphics application that I ever came across. I don't mean start up time, but the time each image processing step needs. Photoshop may need a lot of RAM, but that is primarily because it allocates a lot of it and that mainly for performance reasons. Did you ever try to process huge images or large images with a lot of layers? I guess not, because these will make GIMP slow like a snail.

GIMP is certainly a nice tool for some people, but it misses a lot of pro features.

Last edited by HaraldHeim on Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I use Gimp and CS, both have their places in life, right now Gimp is FREE and really for entusiastic amateurs, CS is very EXPENSIVE and really best used by professionals.

Two thoughts I would offer though,

1. How many of the people who continually trumpet P/Shop actually use non-pirated copies and actually use more than 20 % of its extensive functionality.

2. The huge amount of people coming to digital photography will not accept paying more for their processing software than they did for their camera, does this mean we shall see successive and more powerful versions of Elements, effectively free as they are given with just about everything except cornflakes, or that demand being met by Gimp ??

It would be burying ones head in the sand if one was not to recognise the shifts taking place in the market now - checkout the numbers of Mozilla Firefox being downloaded and MSs' reaction.

Most people certainly don't need Photoshop for image processing. Tools like Elements, Paint Shop Pro or GIMP are certainly enough for the average user.

Photoshop is on an entirely other level and shouldn't be compared to consumer tools like Elements or GIMP. People who need the special features of Photoshop for their work are usually professionals and can certainly afford Photoshop. Of course there are certainly a lot of amateurs who want to play with the best tool on the market, although they can't afford it. But they would certainly have just as much fun with a consumer tool.

I use GIMP and love it. The extra windows were a pain at first, but now I actualy prefere that set up to PS's. What PIXIA lacks GIMP makes up for. I use both progerams because they are free and accept PS plugins. PIXIA was my sole graphics editor until i needed one that would work with TGA files, I found GIMP and now its slowly becoming my program of choice for all file types.

note: Allthough not quite as fast as PS, PIXIA SMOKES I've had 20+ layers set at 1024 X 768 and running heavy plugin filters, all 20 layers done being proccessed by the time i got up for a cup of coffee and sat back down.

Dear TD,
I can only really answer your question from my own perspective and experience.

Generally higher-end plug-in and filter active type people are fairly good or prolific artists and computer artists ... thus their preference is for pretty powerful drawing-painting software.

One of the problems that has been around since the late 1980's (first fixed by a IMSI program - Page-Perfect - in 1988) was that the graphics painting/artist programs were program-biased/designed, rather than designed by artists/painters ... so they had lots of capacity that was not practically possible to apply, or bloody hard to do.

Corel 3~5 were OK, but then did the same mistake and became a genuine artist's nightmare.

IMSI went on to make Photo-Impact but lost the lead when Paint Shop Pro 4 came out. Instead of getting better, they got gradually worse (harder and harder for artists to use), so people deserted the product (like Corel).

These days its a race bewteen Photo Shop (Adobe) and Paint Shop Pro (Jasc).

Personally I think Jasc leads and will always lead, because the program has a basic priority to place the raw artist tools first ... and all the extras second.

Example (though line-wise & freehand shading, none are as good as the 1988 IMSI offering) - try finding an easy/direct way to draw/all lines in Photo Shop 7x or Corel 11x. Should take a few hours. PSP is not perfect, but you can find the line tools in a couple of seconds and they're fairly artistic-user friendly.

GIMP2.0
Now Gimp was designed first as an effects and manipluation tool - albe it one of the most comprehensive around. It is extremely good and well written in programming terms, plus has a couple of excellent exclusive features ... but the layout is programer-biased and pretty difficult to master if your priority is an Artistic-creative bias.

As it is not very originating artist user-friendly (way it is laid-out, not what it can do), most artists will do their artwork on something-else first ... in preference. This makes Gimp lose its advantage (effects and features), because you have to save and exit. Then re-open the file in Gimp to apply the effect.

Although most Gimp effects are better than the basic effects in other software, the genuine artists/creative graphic people are very good with what they have, are used-to, and have added ... thanks to people like Harald and company (those who write/make/design plug-ins and filters).

Gimp2.0 is good; however with the various plug-ins and filters I have collected over the years (many available from Harald's links ... for free), it is not in the same league as either Photo Shop 7.01 or Paint Shop Pro 7.04.

If only wishing to modify existing images, it is about the best you can get (free or paid-for software); however in my experience most people in Harald's 200,000+ rabid readership are long-time creative applied artists ... who usually originate artwork, then modify what they've done.

I hope this kind-of make sense. I have Gimp2.0, Corel 11, PSP7.04, PS7.01, and (on this system) about thirty other graphics suites.

95% of my original work is done by PSP7.04. 35% of my modification work is done with Photo Shop 7.01 (including checking/writing/modifying plug-ins, etc).

Rix wrote: These days its a race bewteen Photo Shop (Adobe) and Paint Shop Pro (Jasc). Personally I think Jasc leads and will always lead, because the program has a basic priority to place the raw artist tools first ... and all the extras second.

I have been a big fan of PSP in the past, but my impression is that it is loosing more and more ground to Photoshop. Especially with the release of Photoshop Elements and the digital photography revolution.

There a lot of features in PSP missing or working in an unacceptable way for digital photographers, e.g. no 16bit support, bad color management, useless monitor gamma tool, slow performance on big images, clumsy RAW conversion tool.

There are also some things that make Photoshop more attractive to designers like a much better text tool and layer effects. Nevertheless, PSP still offers a lot of nice features for digital artists. The question is if it is enough to give it a bright future.

I found Version 9 of PSP a bit weak concerning the new features and I don't know how it will develop now that Corel took over and some important people left the company.

Gimp2.0 is good; however with the various plug-ins and filters I have collected over the years (many available from Harald's links ... for free), it is not in the same league as either Photo Shop 7.01 or Paint Shop Pro 7.04.

GIMP's support for Photoshop plugins is bad, which is quite a disadvantage in my opinion. If people's favorite plugins don't work with GIMP, they may hesitate to use it as their primary tool.

I have PSP 7, 8 AND 9 on my machine atm. I use mostly 8, but there are some things that 7 just does faster & better.

That being said, I would LOVE to have PS, but its' price is WAY out of range for me right now. I have thought about "borrowing" a copy, but somehow doesn't seem quite right when it's for work purposes.

Also -- did you know that GIMP contains spyware????? Yep. comes up on my spyware killers -- all 3 of them. I also find it not quite so user friendly.

Well....here's hoping my numbers come up this weekend so I can get a copy of PS.

It seems this topic is two years old now, so I'd thought it might need a kick

Right now I am using PS Elements 3 with Harald's plug-ins (B/W styler, Colorwasher, Focal Blade and Light Machine).
I envisage that I may have to migrate to Vista in the near future, and I expect that PSE 3 may not run under Vista.
I don't want to spend money on a new version of PSE, so I am considering a switch to the Gimp.
There is a new version of the Gimp since this topic started, the current version seems to be 2.2.17
I am just wondering if Harald's plugins still have the limitations with the Gimp as in earlier versions of the Gimp? Anyone who can comment on this?

Herman wrote:I am just wondering if Harald's plugins still have the limitations with the Gimp as in earlier versions of the Gimp? Anyone who can comment on this?

Never mind, I decided to install the latest version of the Gimp myself and give it a try.
The preview pane of Harald's plugins is more or less useless, they zoom in (100% I guess) on the picture and the view can not be changed. Oh well, it was worth the try.....